Saturday, November 11, 2006

It's Gameday. Use the Comments section to break down all the action througout the day. I'm having one of those classic "Picture-in-Picture" afternoons: Ohio St at Northwestern at 3:30 on ABC, South Carolina at Florida at 3:30 on CBS. All I ask is that NU keeps it remotely competitive -- an Illinois-like showing would be fine -- and that Florida play pinball with the BCS formula by putting an old-school Spurrier-style run-up on new-school Spurrier's Gamecocks. (Also closely monitoring: Oregon at USC, Tennessee at Arkansas, Texas at Kansas St.) Have at it and enjoy the day. More later, hopefully. -- D.S.

Update (7:12 p.m.): OK, OK: So Florida's win was the antithesis of what appears to be this weekend's catchphrase "style points." But when you're at the top, a win's a win, in terms of keeping you alive for another week to actually look good while winning. I remember Ohio State in 2002; they won a national title going 13-0, mostly on the backs of not winning games particularly pretty.

But I digress. Here's how I'd caveat the previous paragraph: Based on the way they played -- which is to say, pretty badly, aside from some clutch play by the defensive field goal and XP unit -- Florida doesn't DESERVE to be the team that plays the winner of OSU-Michigan. Texas is better, and that makes the argument for any other team irrelevant. (That means you: USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Rutgers.)More on this on Sunday a.m. Texas! Yikes! Sorry, 'Horns.

Now, I should provide a second caveat: FOR NOW. The Gators have three weeks to...well...prove they deserve it. I don't care if the BCS formula spits them out as No. 3 this week, which it might. You can't tell fans to disbelieve their own eyes.

*They can stomp Western Carolina next week and they'll probably LOSE ground to Texas in the BCS formula, because WCU ain't exactly a strength-of-schedule helper. But they can at least show that their offense isn't an impotent joke.

*They can beat a decent -- though not even close to good -- Florida State team and earn points for winning in Tallahassee against a bowl team. Not bad, but not great. Certainly as good as Texas beating Texas A&M.

*And they can beat a 1-loss, 2-loss or -- god forbid -- 3-loss Arkansas team in the SEC title game and win the toughest conference in college football. The degree to which that matters depends on the quality of the team they beat. I'll make it simple: That Arkansas team has to be better than whatever team Texas beats in the Big 12 title game.

Now, that entire argument is predicated on Florida actually winning these next three games. And, if you watched this dud today, that's by no means a guarantee. But if they keep winning -- with grit or with "style," with luck or with talent -- they'll remain in the argument. We're in "survive and advance" mode now, folks. Isn't parity great? Cripes...

I suspect OSU is going to be pissed about all the whining about their win last week, so they're going to try to shove the ball down the throats of the Wildcats. They probably won't show anything special, but I guarantee you they won't be happy until they're up by 20.

Also, Georgia is beating Auburn. Anyone else want Georgia to win to take the SEC down a notch or three?

- Makes Florida's loss to Florida look more like a fluke. (Eh...that's iffy.)

- And, if Arkansas can beat Tennessee AND LSU en route to an SEC West title, they'll be No. 6 or 7 in the BCS formula, which is good enough to help Florida vault Texas with a win in the SEC title game.

Now, if Florida plays a two-loss team in the SEC title game (say, if Arkansas loses to Tennessee or LSU or both), it's a whole other story and Florida is screwed.

(But let's all remember that it's not like Texas plays THAT tough of a remaining schedule: K-St, Tex AM, Nebraska? Eh. Unimpressive.)

Maybe I'm rationalizing, in the face of what could be the end of Florida's BCS title-game chances with Auburn losing.

I'm not sure I buy that. I certainly was among the folks who wanted Florida to beat a Top 5 BCS Auburn in the SEC title game to ensure their BCS title game case was made. Anything else is a little too iffy.

Of course, Florida still has to take care of its own business today...that's no gimme.

I've been hearing more and more rumors about Fisher being canned and Tennessee just starting over with a clean slate. I think that he could have a chance to immediately take over another job. But, to be honest, the guy is the perfect college coach. Born in Cali, played at SC and with the Bears. No real tie to Boston. Would be hard to land him. But, if you are offering out 1.5 or so, you'd have a chance to land him (especially given the Boston locale which always is a HUGE attraction for coaches with families). Imagine if we gave him 1.5 and his OC (Norm Chow)

I believe the computers place more weight on who you lose to than who you beat. Auburn's computer ranking is hurt significantly by losing to Georgia, moreso than Georgia's ranking will gain by beating Auburn. Similarly, Florida is hurt more by their loss to Auburn than helped by their win over Georgia.

Also, the second degree rankings are pretty much a wash at this point, as so many teams have played so many others by this point; while they don't effectively cancel out, for purposes of guesstimating it's easier to presume they do.

Meanwhile, I don't want ANY griping from Michigan fans this week when I vote Louisville No. 2 ahead of Michigan. Any team that lets Ball Effing State hang around isn't worthy of the No. 2 ranking. (Not like it matters: If the last two weeks are any indication, Michigan is going to get its ass handed to it by Ohio State anyway. Ball State? Come on! I shake my head at you, Michigan fans... And don't give me that "We were saving it for the Ohio St game" b.s. Ball State -- Ball State! -- was an incompletion away from taking the game to OT. What a joke. Stop griping about some entitlement to the No. 2 spot and learn how to put away the weak teams.)

In tradition of Dan's words last week about Michigan and Ohio State: South Carlolina? come'on South Carolina? and had to have the ref's help to boot? Florida better start playing better if they want to have a shot at the SEC championship much less the National Title

Some will say it's a moot argument after UF's escape, but with Auburn's loss, UF gains vote consolidation in the polls. The SEC biased have one less 1-loss team to vote for and (before the close game) may have moved Florida up to Auburns position (assuming one or more teams between them) and drop Auburn to wherever.

Auburn and California losses are huge for Rutgers and Boise St. (although Boise St. winning out should be enough with the ACC maxing out around 13-16)

Say this outloud : "Instant history is stupid and its a dumb schtick. I will stop using it as my crutch and logic. I will attempt to be a real sports fan and journalist. I will now try and cultivate the minimal amount of talent I have to try and get a real job"

Given the way that both teams have played, I really think both Florida and Texas will find a way to yack up either their cross-state finale or conference title game ... leaving the winner of the USC/Notre Dame game as the most likely team to face the OSU/Michigan winner for all the marbles.

BTW, the ESPN talking heads seem to really complain about Rutgers' weak non-conference schedule, but doing that precludes any unexpected contenders from making the title game. Rutgers didn't schedule much because they really didn't expect to be this good (and aren't some game scheduled a whole year ahead of time)? Now, some other team that's been ranked for more than a week or so during the last 2 years has to be a bit more agressive. I mean, when the scheduling was done, It could have been that some contending schools thought they'd rather schedule a tougher foe so they passed on a "Cupcake" that they thought Rutgers was.

Alright, I'll be a little more fair, this QB was not ready for this. But would Colt really transform this game right now?

...ouch, that one was a coverage sack.

There have been 2 very near-interceptions; sure, I'll assume Colt is more experienced than that. But that special teams runback, the running backs getting stuffed all the time, the coverage sacks... I don't see how C.M. would have Texas on top of this K-State team that is playing defense like Rutgers right now.

Never underestimate the motivation that comes from a game-changer, such as a QB injury. Honestly, I don't trust K-State not to blow this game. It doesn't even need to be on defense, they've already had a costly fumble on Offense.

FSU is looking like absolutely crap right now. I hope Dan isn't counting on a poll boost when Florida plays them in two weeks.

By the way, can I take this moment to point out that Wisconsin is also a one-loss team?

Yeah, ABC, your graphic left that one out a little.

What's the deal with this? Wisconsin has beaten teams a lot better than, say, Rutgers's opponents, by more points, all season, and has only one loss, to what most of us think is a pretty good team (certainly no motherfucking Auburn, if I may be so bold), but they can't even buy a mention in the one-loss team listing?

I think I might complain even more about this in 2 days, since Wisconsin is currently #11 according to the computers, but #16 according to the dumbasses. I mean people.

If things stay the way they are tonight (not that likely, but whatever), or even if they don't, I think Auburn definitely drops far enough, and maybe... Cal should probably drop to the ranks of the two-loss teams, below #10 at least; Louisville might not drop far enough... but, given those two losses, UW is at #9 - maybe UL could drop to #9, pushing Wisc. into 8th?And then the speculation - if Texas keeps it up, that's certainly one more spot for the Badgers; and USC has a great great chance to lose to Oregon, since the Trojans really suck.

So the point is, if USC and Texas both go ahead and lose, the computers seem like they would bump Wisconsin ahead of losers Louisville, Cal, Auburn, Texas, aaand USC.

The humans seem very unlikely to do that, given the inertia that we are by now so very familiar with.

So, you can expect me to be crying foul if things pan out in ways I think they certainly might.

Also, don't say anything about Illinois. I didn't say Wisconsin was the best team in the country; I just said they belong in the 1-loss discussion, same as all the teams who have narrowly avoided their second loss this season.

Ooops - I meant, "Iowa," not "Illinois." I was just confused because of how roughly the season has treated the mighty Hawkeyes.

I wish I had been posting angrily on the internet back in the summer, when Rece Davis and his buddies in the SportsCenter Ridiculous Room (i.e., "we built this room just to film the most ridiculous segments we could think of") predicted Iowa would win the Big Ten. I had so much to say, and so few people to whom i could say it.

Great strip, K-State - now get a little more than a safety out of it, huh?

Good call on UL over KSU rukrusher. Great timing for that information, no joke.

But still, I may very well not be convinced, since I knew UL was a fraud (I said so once or twice, I think), and I don't think KSU is a dominant team or anything, but I do think Texas is showing the kind of inconsistency that you see from a team that isn't great.

Wow, what a bad spot for KSU, to force a punt.

What a lousy drop by Sweed... can any Texas receivers catch? Crazy play, miraculously went OK in the backfield, and he wasted it like that. This game is nuts.

By the way, this is certainly in the WVU-UL "HS Football" category, not the supposed UT-USC "Instant Classic" category.

... am I insane, or did Kansas State beat Oklahoma in the Big XII Championship in 2K3?

I'm pretty certain this happened, given this, but ABC's graphic definitely just said that K-State's last win over a Top 5 team was in 2000. Was... Oklahoma... not in the Top 5, when they lost but still went on to the National Championship game? I don't think that to be the case.

Jesus, these guys are leaving it all out on the field. More injuries than I've ever seen in a game, by probably 5.

Not long after he found out that his team had been snubbed for the designated national championship game yesterday, Southern California Coach Pete Carroll insisted that the Trojans would be playing for the national championship anyway.

U.S.C. ascended to the top of both national polls earlier in the day after its victory Saturday over Oregon State and Oklahoma's loss to Kansas State, but Oklahoma was selected to play Louisiana State for the national championship in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4. U.S.C. is No. 3 in the Bowl Championship Series standing.

The Trojans (11-1) became the first team ranked No. 1 in the polls to be bypassed for the national title game in the six-year history of the B.C.S., but Carroll, with only a touch of defiance in his voice, had already become a spin doctor.

''We have not been tied to, or made legitimate by, the B.C.S. all year,'' Carroll said in a conference call with reporters last night.

A share of the national championship, he said, is still U.S.C.'s to lose. The Trojans will play Michigan (10-2), the Big Ten champion, in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 1, and Carroll suggested that his team should still be No. 1 if it were to beat the Wolverines.

''The fact that there's a controversy going on with it makes it all that much more interesting,'' Carroll said.

The coaches who vote in the USA Today/ESPN poll have said that the winner of the designated national championship game will be the national champion, even though L.S.U. (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) trail U.S.C. in the their poll, too.

The news media members who participate in the Associated Press poll are under no such obligation. So a split national championship -- something that has not happened since 1997, the year before the B.C.S. was formed -- is a possibility.

''I really don't think there's any chance that this game is going to get lost,'' Michigan Coach Lloyd Carr said. Carr called the Rose Bowl a championship game between two championship teams.

Mitch Dorger, the chief executive of the Tournament of Roses, was somewhat more restrained. He was simply delighted that a Big Ten team would play a Pacific-10 team in the traditional Rose Bowl matchup. Because of its affiliation with the B.C.S., the Rose Bowl has not had a Big Ten-versus-Pac-10 matchup since the 2000 season.

But Dorger also said, ''We are well aware that the game will have implications beyond the game itself.''

A team from the Pac-10 has not played in the designated national championship game since the B.C.S. was formed. Southern California was No. 2 in the B.C.S. standing before Saturday, but several results helped to drop the Trojans below L.S.U.

''I don't know how to fix this system other than play it off,'' Carroll said.

Two teams that U.S.C. played, Hawaii (8-5) and Notre Dame (5-7), lost Saturday. Although the Trojans beat Oregon State (7-5), their strength-of-schedule rating stayed the same, at No. 37 among Division I-A teams.

But after L.S.U. beat Georgia (10-3) in the Southeastern Conference championship game, its strength-of-schedule rating jumped to No. 29 from No. 54. That gain helped L.S.U. edge U.S.C. by 16-hundredths of a point over all.

''I think the fact that they played Georgia allowed them to take a big jump,'' Mike Tranghese, the Big East Conference commissioner and the B.C.S. coordinator, said of L.S.U.

Tom Hansen, the Pac-10 commissioner, said in a statement that it was most unfortunate that the computer elements of the B.C.S. ranking, including the strength-of-schedule rating, overcame U.S.C.'s No. 1 poll ranking. A similar result involving the Pac-10 occurred in the 2001 season, when Oregon finished second in both polls but was not selected for the national championship game, Hansen said.

Although the Trojans were ranked one place higher in the news media polls, L.S.U. was ranked about one place higher in the computer ratings. Each team has one loss, so the strength of schedule cost the Trojans a place in the Sugar Bowl.

''It's hard to sit here and do cartwheels,'' Tranghese said, referring to the snub of U.S.C.

Southern California won its conference championship, and Oklahoma, which was routed by Kansas State in the Big 12 title game, 35-7, did not. But U.S.C. did not have to play in a conference title game, and L.S.U. did.

Tranghese found himself saying that he felt bad for the Trojans, and Carroll said the Trojans would do their best to foul up the B.C.S.'s best-laid plans.

''The one thing I think I can say is that we are the No. 1 team in the nation, and that is undisputed,'' Trojans wide receiver Mike Williams told The Associated Press. ''If we went out and played either one of those teams, we'd give them their best games and we'd probably win. But right now, that's a whole different thing. So we'll just deal with it and move on.''

Not long after he found out that his team had been snubbed for the designated national championship game yesterday, Southern California Coach Pete Carroll insisted that the Trojans would be playing for the national championship anyway.

U.S.C. ascended to the top of both national polls earlier in the day after its victory Saturday over Oregon State and Oklahoma's loss to Kansas State, but Oklahoma was selected to play Louisiana State for the national championship in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4. U.S.C. is No. 3 in the Bowl Championship Series standing.

The Trojans (11-1) became the first team ranked No. 1 in the polls to be bypassed for the national title game in the six-year history of the B.C.S., but Carroll, with only a touch of defiance in his voice, had already become a spin doctor.

''We have not been tied to, or made legitimate by, the B.C.S. all year,'' Carroll said in a conference call with reporters last night.

A share of the national championship, he said, is still U.S.C.'s to lose. The Trojans will play Michigan (10-2), the Big Ten champion, in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 1, and Carroll suggested that his team should still be No. 1 if it were to beat the Wolverines.

''The fact that there's a controversy going on with it makes it all that much more interesting,'' Carroll said.

The coaches who vote in the USA Today/ESPN poll have said that the winner of the designated national championship game will be the national champion, even though L.S.U. (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) trail U.S.C. in the their poll, too.

The news media members who participate in the Associated Press poll are under no such obligation. So a split national championship -- something that has not happened since 1997, the year before the B.C.S. was formed -- is a possibility.

''I really don't think there's any chance that this game is going to get lost,'' Michigan Coach Lloyd Carr said. Carr called the Rose Bowl a championship game between two championship teams.

Mitch Dorger, the chief executive of the Tournament of Roses, was somewhat more restrained. He was simply delighted that a Big Ten team would play a Pacific-10 team in the traditional Rose Bowl matchup. Because of its affiliation with the B.C.S., the Rose Bowl has not had a Big Ten-versus-Pac-10 matchup since the 2000 season.

But Dorger also said, ''We are well aware that the game will have implications beyond the game itself.''

A team from the Pac-10 has not played in the designated national championship game since the B.C.S. was formed. Southern California was No. 2 in the B.C.S. standing before Saturday, but several results helped to drop the Trojans below L.S.U.

''I don't know how to fix this system other than play it off,'' Carroll said.

Two teams that U.S.C. played, Hawaii (8-5) and Notre Dame (5-7), lost Saturday. Although the Trojans beat Oregon State (7-5), their strength-of-schedule rating stayed the same, at No. 37 among Division I-A teams.

But after L.S.U. beat Georgia (10-3) in the Southeastern Conference championship game, its strength-of-schedule rating jumped to No. 29 from No. 54. That gain helped L.S.U. edge U.S.C. by 16-hundredths of a point over all.

''I think the fact that they played Georgia allowed them to take a big jump,'' Mike Tranghese, the Big East Conference commissioner and the B.C.S. coordinator, said of L.S.U.

Tom Hansen, the Pac-10 commissioner, said in a statement that it was most unfortunate that the computer elements of the B.C.S. ranking, including the strength-of-schedule rating, overcame U.S.C.'s No. 1 poll ranking. A similar result involving the Pac-10 occurred in the 2001 season, when Oregon finished second in both polls but was not selected for the national championship game, Hansen said.

Although the Trojans were ranked one place higher in the news media polls, L.S.U. was ranked about one place higher in the computer ratings. Each team has one loss, so the strength of schedule cost the Trojans a place in the Sugar Bowl.

''It's hard to sit here and do cartwheels,'' Tranghese said, referring to the snub of U.S.C.

Southern California won its conference championship, and Oklahoma, which was routed by Kansas State in the Big 12 title game, 35-7, did not. But U.S.C. did not have to play in a conference title game, and L.S.U. did.

Tranghese found himself saying that he felt bad for the Trojans, and Carroll said the Trojans would do their best to foul up the B.C.S.'s best-laid plans.

''The one thing I think I can say is that we are the No. 1 team in the nation, and that is undisputed,'' Trojans wide receiver Mike Williams told The Associated Press. ''If we went out and played either one of those teams, we'd give them their best games and we'd probably win. But right now, that's a whole different thing. So we'll just deal with it and move on.''

If we ignore Boise State and the 1-loss ACC and Big East teams (I don't think any of those teams could surpass the loser of OSU-Michigan), these are the teams in contention for Championship game:UndefeatedOSU/Michigan WinnerRutgersOne lossOSU/Michigan LoserWisconsin (maybe)Notre Dame/USC WinnerFlorida/Arkansas Winner

We're down to 6 teams; maybe even 5 since it might be tough for Wisconsin to leap the loser of OSU/UM (especially if it's Michigan).

Anyone else starting to get the feeling there won't be a BCS controversy this year?

And the games wouldn't have been half as exciting if there was a playoff. So nyeh nyeh!

we're both spiky in opposite directions sometimes, but you're one of the most persistent voices of reason here. did you just mention wisconsin because i recently brought up their credentials? because the world hasn't allowed anybody to think about the badgers in a national championship context all year.

granted, no OSU on the schedule didn't do UW any favors, but as far as I'm concerned, they had approximately the same resume as Texas pre-KSU, I'd say perhaps even better than USC's, and similar comparisons with teams in similar situations.

Also, I really really wish Navy wasn't bowl-eligible, so we'd have a chance at seeing a USF vs. Miami/FSU Meineke Bowl. Because, seriously, at this point, I really think USF is the second best Florida team.

I just compared the two team's schedules, and they've shared 7 opponents so far, and OSU has beaten each shared opponent by a greater margin (even Illinois). So without even considering the fact that OSU played Texas, I don't know how you could put a 1-loss Wisconsin team over a 1-loss OSU team.

And UW is playing Buffalo next week, which will hurt their PC rankings. UW's mountain is unscalable, I'm afraid.

It is a shame that OSU doesn't play UW this season so we don't find out for sure.

I'm trying to figure out the BCS scenarios, but it all stems from who plays the OSU-UM winner (the same question we've been asking for the last 5 weeks).

I'm assuming the ND holds on to a BCS berth, regardless of the USC-ND result. I assume Arkansas can beat MSU and/or LSU for the SEC Championship Game. I also assume Boise St. will win out and rise far enough through attrition to #12 or better and/ or be better than ACC champ. If Rutgers doesn't get #2, I generalize for whoever wins the BigEast.

So if Rutgers wins out and gets #2 I see it playing out like this:Glendale: OSU/UM-W vs RutgersRose: USC/Cal-W vs OSU/UM-LSugar: Ark/UF-W vs NDOrange: ACC vs SEC-AtLargeFiesta: Texas vs BSU

My main question is will the Rose Bowl try to avoid a USC/ND or UM/ND rematch if it plays out that way or will it pick up an undefeated Rutgers, or even a 2-loss SEC team? Will the Sugar Bowl pass up Notre Dame to have another SEC/BigEast match (after WVa-U[sic]GA last year)?

Why am I having visions of USC making it after pollsters give them way too much credit for not much of anything this season (Sure, they beat Arkansas when Arkansas was down their best player, big whoop), and the entire nation goes appocolyptic when an undefeated Rutgers is left out, and they're stuck with YET ANOTHER USC title game that we all are long since sick of?

I have a crazy question that has nothing do with college football, but I wanted to pose this question to everybody. Why is Sammy Sosa equated to steroids? His name has never been implicated in any reports and he has never failed a test; just like Bonds. I'm not a Cubs/Sosa fan, but I just wanted to know why people in this country jump on people without any evidence whatsoever.

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.